Were Split Velocity implemented between 2020 -2024/5 Zambia would be moving away from a per capita income of U$1,630 to a per capita income of US$3,736 and a GDP of between US$80 billion to US$120 billion (Guaranteed i.e. financed by Split Velocity). A Split Velocity model does not just make predictions, it ensures the resources to finance projections are made available in the economy.
It would have taken the Split Velocity model 4 years to improve per capita income by just US$2,106. This illustrates how difficult it is to grow a national economy. Nevertheless, this would be a 129% improvement in per capita income and therefore per chance a significant 129% improvement in living standards for all Zambians.
At present Zambia’s per capita has lowered from US$1,307.02 to US$1,226.00 as predicted by the chart illustrated below this trend of zero or low growth further aggravated by debt, drought, inflation and other unanticipated economic shocks will continue to 2030 and continue indefinitely beyond that despite valiant and commendable effort to move the economy forward.
The struggle for economic growth is real and it is hoped that the remarkable improvements a Split Velocity model can provide will be introduced to guarantee economic growth in the future.
A Split Velocity model offers the ability to raise per capita income to US$26,814.15 within a short period (10 years). However, it must be implemented to begin to enjoy these levels of growth.
The chart shows that by 2024/5 had we implemented the Spit Velocity model in 2020 today we would be approaching a growth in GDP o between US$86bn – US$120 billion and per capita income of between US$3,736.28 – US$5,653.00. The bottom purple bars show how, as predicted, we are moving in the status quo section when no stimulus is provided by a Split Velocity model. As you can see by 2024/25 the chart predicts Zambia’s GDP will be below US$34 billion, however, GDP at US$28 billion is much lower than this due to various shocks to the economy. The SV model could have mitigated against these shocks. We hope the SV model will be adopted in future as the strategy for Zambia’s economic advancement.
After having designed the Split Velocity Model which would accelerate growth in GDP within countries, I realized that I had to look into the problem with international trade which was still backward, facing significant bottlenecks and needed strong revision. My recommendations were for countries to rely on their central banks to create electronic clearing houses for international trade. The design of this new international trade system would allow countries to do away with trade deficits, and create a very powerful form of integration where many countries in this type of trade system function essentially as one country in terms of trade and commerce.
Most economic blocks want to create a single currency. It is an objective born out of economic fantasies about a single currency being able to unify nations. This is of course a concept that comes about as a result of shallow strategies intended for the advancement of economies to which not much thought has been applied. For instance, organizations may be creating regional or continental payment systems, but what is the point of these really if they are not capable of generating the new income and a new revenue source observed in an ECH system?
I would advise old and newly emerging economic blocks and communities that have national currencies to abandon the notion that a single currency will somehow transform them from a backwater enterprise into a super star of commerce. Creating a single currency does no such thing, it is a fashion statement. If currencies are interchangeable and recognized by central banks, this in effect creates a single currency that represents unity in diversity. What does accomplish this is creating a unifying international trade system. When countries can trade, exchange imports and exports without injuring one another with deficits they effectively become one country. This truly accomplishes what the single currency will never achieve.
How can countries do what appears impossible – engage in international trade without deficits?
Economic communities, such as BRICS for instance, need to focus on trade unity as opposed to the objective of a single currency. Trade unity in essence means that nations are devising a system where countries benefit from international trade whether they are a net importer or exporter of goods and services. When this happens the movement of goods and services does not injure the country that opens its borders to imports. When countries can import without deficits and countries can enjoy the gains from exports there are no losers, only winners, and in this condition every country is better off. When one country exports to another and another accepts imports the fact that there are no losers means it is no different from goods and services moving within one country. In this process currencies become equal and products move growing the economy of both the exporter and importer creating net economic gain for both countries.
The table below illustrates the current international trade system. Imagine there are just 2 countries in the world, country A and country B. The combined trade of the two countries amounts to $10 billion, however, in this archaic trade system one country enjoys its surplus of $2 billion at the expense of its trade partner suffering from a deficit of -$2 billion. This is not an example of unity, it represents the opposite of fundamental balance, that is, the opposite of “yinyang” or positive life-force, it is not an example of two countries in a trade block that is uplifting for both, it is really an out of balance rivalry that makes no sense in economics if countries are coming together to form an economic community.
The exporters (companies) in both countries earn a direct income of US$4 billion and US$6 billion respectively.
Country A benefits from trade more than Country B since it has a surplus of US$2 billion.
Country B is disadvantaged by having a deficit of US$2 billion.
There are no financial resources at the governmental level generated by the system with which to correct the trade imbalance since currencies bypass central banks during trade.
Neither Country A nor Country B can advance in international trade without one country compromising the other.
This system is archaic, it can be replaced with a more sensible international trade system that will ensure both importers and exporters benefit from trade. The basic approach is to use an electronic clearing house or ECH International Trade System, which involves central banks in how the movement of goods and services takes place between countries. The table below shows what happens when central banks introduce an ECH, trade deficits that harm countries come to an end. In essence these countries are brought together in manner that is closer than the “single currency” system, economically they become like one nation. Both exporter and importers now benefit international trade.
“…..when an ECH system is introduced currencies no longer bypass central banks when international trade is taking place (see diagram below). The principle used is that goods move freely between countries, however, currencies remain domestic. Currencies do not need to move since central banks can debit and credit one another to facilitate trade (receive payments from importers and make payments to exporters respectively in each country); basically the movement of goods and services between countries (the finances in column X are unlocked as shown in column Y Table 2 by switching the system. The result is the revenues with which to finance and reconcile the net surplus and deficit between trading countries to zero become accessible by governments, thus ensuring there are no deficits, that is, losses to either exporting or importing countries. As explained earlier, to achieve this, the international trade system has to change. In a new ECH international trade system exporters earn income from exports, but countries also earn direct income from imports creating a surplus with which to reconcile the deficits created by international trade. “
The system creates the changes for Country A and B shown in Table 2.
As you can see from Period 1 to Period 2 of the table below an ECH International Trade System agreed between country A and B moves from having detrimental deficits in Period 1 to no deficits in Period 2. Trade is balanced at the ECH level. Countries that open their economies to imports are not injured by a trade deficit, which the Treasury has to constantly mitigate against by having forex/hard currencies for covering imports. There is no longer a need whatsoever for holding foreign currency to cover exports, this process is now redundant. Since individual companies in exporting countries still earn income for their exports the net gain for net exporters is not affected, they still enjoy that “high level exporter” status, and the countries to whom they export can no longer claim imports hurt their economies due to nonsensical foreign exchange barriers to trade. When nations join an ECH International Trade System it in essence naturally means though national currencies are diverse they are now automatically interchangeable and behave like one currency bringing sanity and much needed equality to the international trade system. At present international trade discriminates against sovereign currencies in less developed economies, a practice that is unacceptable in this day and age. To skip the ECH process and go straight to a single currency creates a disingenuous international trade system that does not in reality create equality or resolve the problem of deficits for member states. BRICS and the African Union will find the ECH system more powerful and meaningful than simply copying the single currency process which does not in real terms unify cooperating countries, it is more about controlling their economies in an imperial manner rather than bringing nations together in genuine solidarity.
Before an ECH International Trade System was introduced there was no gain at the governmental or macroeconomic level except through customs duties, taxes on imports and exports. However, have you noted that after the ECH system is introduced Country A and Country B are looking at a $2 billion earning, which did not exist before, that they can now mutually decide how to spend. This $2 billion which is non-existent before the ECH, can essentially show that there are huge amounts of income to be gained as a result of introducing an ECH. Governments must ask themselves what they could achieve with this tremendous source of revenue at the domestic level and in financing their international institutions. For instance, what could the World Bank, United Nations, African Union, European Union and other international institutions accomplish if they were allocated a percentage of this income, which globally amounts to trillions of dollars plucked out of thin air, since they are created simply by upgrading the international trade system to an ECH model. This change to an ECH system creates a shocking amount of value and income with which to invest in positive programs. These trillions of dollars in value, which did not exist before and are created simply by introducing an ECH system, can be used to fund programs, foster greater cooperation, global harmony and peace between countries.
This type of trade union is what economic communities such as BRICS, the African Union and African countries in general should be striving for. In comparison a single currency is really just a fad with very little economic value. A fad in the sense that it invokes imperialistic ambitions that are not necessarily beneficial to participating countries in the long run that find themselves yielding dignity and control of their own economies. In fact it erodes the cultural heritage expressed through a national currency and erodes the socio-economic value inherent in national currencies if it requires domestic currencies to be phased out. Why create a bland single currency when you can instead use an ECH system to bring a basket of diverse national currencies and celebrate the fact that they are interchangeable and hence have become “one currency”. The UN should support a “World Currency Day” where vendors at a trade fair and businesses in every country, on that day, accept payments using any currency, basically encouraging people the world over to scrutinize, collect, learn about, respect and embrace each other’s currencies. This is a celebration that can be held every year by participating countries bringing them together in a way that celebrates every country, being like one country. A single currency created by an economic community can still co-exist and become a currency in this basket. To accept another nation’s currency is to accept its people, respect the work they do, value their effort and labour, and embrace the fact that all humanity is equal, expressing this through currency expresses it through commerce which helps lead to the economic emancipation of humanity, which is long overdue. No nation should take pride in the fact that its currency is superior to another nation or group of nation’s currencies, because a genius knows discrimination is bad for businesses, and a great leader of great intellect understands that a currency that postures itself in this way is blinded by pride and consequently losing not gaining strength and value. The strength, value and power of a national currency cannot be greater than when it is equal to and unconditionally exchangeable with currencies of other nations, the reason being that in this position it becomes capable of the greatest and most efficient trade possible.
Creating a single currency for a group of nations or trading block does make sense, however, this system, which is a top down model, should not necessarily mean that individual countries should completely abandon and obliterate their national currencies. Isn’t it more sensible to create such a strong partnership that if a trader says they are trading in Kwacha, they are in fact saying they are trading in a hard currency like Japanese Yen or Chinese Yuan? The same for Brazilian Real, Naira, Rupees, Rands etc. because these countries have come together to create one currency. This one currency can also mean that each individual currency is equal to that of its partner country as they all back each other up.
When buyers in a country want to import goods and currency is no longer a barrier to making these purchases, this truly grows and enhances international trade. This is a fact, however, it is politely ignored. The reality is that when currencies act as a barrier to trade they not only hinder commerce, but represent a form of discrimination formalized and institutionalized through how currencies are used as mechanisms for exclusion by the international trade system, that though discriminatory and potentially illegal, modern day governments have been groomed to believe are an acceptable corporate practice . For how long do developing countries have to wait for genuine equality? Discriminated against initially on skin colour, then after an epiphany everyone is then considered equal, discriminated against in terms of intellectual ability, then a light bulb turns on and intellectual equality is proposed, and the reality today is that this discrimination exists in economic cooperation by the use of currencies to exclude developing economies. Why is this the case when they need the most help?
How long will it take for this light bulb to turn on, so that developing countries with sovereign currencies can enter the store (international trade) through its front door and pick what they want and need like every other developed country and not have to queue at the store’s little neo-colonial window and explain how it is they can afford what they want to buy before the shop keeper agrees to sell to them. Like Dr Kaunda, developing countries should ask for the purchased bicycle to be given through little window, this is the hypocrisy of the current international trade system governments in developing countries have been groomed from independence to believe is how business should be conducted, when it is in fact a farce.
These excluded countries must first work to sell imports with which to have the hard currency or “slave master’s” currency in their Treasuries up front to cover imports while other countries can simply purchase imports directly, invest these funds in productivity and reconcile the need for cover after the fact, an unfair advantage that should no longer be available to a few countries to the exclusion of other countries. This access should be available to every sovereign nation as a fundamental right, because today as humanity, we are better than this. The result of this kind of unnecessary discrimination is that it weighs down commerce making it inefficient and less agile than it should be consequently making the entire international trade system weak and farcical. Officials claim they want the best in international trade, want countries to grow, want increased participation and financial inclusion which can only come from greater equality yet in the meantime the very foundations of international trade are a nonsensical system built on discrimination against sovereign currencies. Discrimination is bad for business, how currency is used is no exception. It can’t be had both ways, the hypocrisy needs to be thrown out and genuine business come to the fore.
So as you can see, in an ECH International Trade System facilitated by central banks the need to hold the US dollar or any currency for that matter becomes redundant as all currencies are considered equal, the practice of discrimination against currencies that is hurting growth and industrialization especially in developing countries, is cast out. There is no need for the Treasury in Zambia to hold any foreign currency, the Kwacha is enough because in an ECH system the Kwacha, which represents the hard work of the Zambian people, is regarded as equal to currency in any other country. The fear that plagues governments of running out of hard currency is thrown out the window, it is an archaic neo-colonial fear that should no longer be allowed to exist to haunt struggling nations. Net exporters that are already champions of international trade like China continue to enjoy their status and can do so in good conscience due to the fact that their exporters still enjoy gains from exporting, trade deficits can no longer be used as an excuse for countries blocking imports such as that seen recently with electric vehicles.
Competition becomes healthier, nations succeed by competing on innovation and quality of goods and services. Currency discrimination is thrown out, the International Trade System is fair, business thrives and commerce between countries is allowed to blossom. The icing on the cake is the trillions of dollars worth of value unlocked by the ECH system, that did not exist before, that nations now have to play with to foster peace and international cooperation.
Dr Kaunda, “Give me my bicycle through the little window.” {National Museum] Currency discrimination in the international trade system is an inhumane practice reminiscent of the holocaust, carried over from the colonial period. It turns countries into concentration camps where many trapped by their currency suffer tremendously. This heinous ongoing practice of mass discrimination has sadly continued to be practiced and institutionalized by Bretton Woods institutions. This is an area where reforms are urgently required as they represent a conflict of interest in terms of the purpose of these institutions and why they were created. It is a neocolonial practice that is illegal and cannot be justified or rationalized in the same way other forms of discrimination observed in slavery, Jim Crow and colonialism carried on, structural racism of this nature cannot be justified or rationalized in any manner whatsoever, it can only be abandoned and replaced. A new, fair and equal currency system is required that respects all governments, all sovereign currencies, regards them as equal, and that respects the multitude of nations, their people and the hard work their currencies represent, before or after the fact. The only currency a nation should be required to have in its Treasury is its own currency, because its own currency is enough, it is equal to all other currencies.
[This method for creating a new inclusive and equal international trade system is sourced from the book The Greater Poverty & Wealth of Nations (2010) written by Siize Punabantu, for more in depth writing about this system and approach you can also read Currency Wars & International Trade: download the paper here]
A Split Velocity system manages price stability and is capable of wiping out chronic inflation for governments that struggle with either a depreciating or appreciating currency. The table below highlights the benefits SV-Tech can bring to the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) system.
(The SDR value system is limited to a basket 5 “hard” currencies, however, it should be noted that any currency managed using a Split Velocity Model is technically superior to a hard currency)
SV-Tech makes gold and other precious metals like copper more valuable.
The options for maintaining price stability being observed here are innovation and technology (e.g. SV-Tech) as opposed to precious metal (e.g. gold). Which is the most useful?
If you have performed the Instruction Set for a Legally Admissible Empirical Test for Split Velocity then you have successfully evaluated Split Velocity by way of empirical test.
Let us now compare SV-Tech (Split Velocity) to Purchasing Gold as a means of maintaining price stability.
The Instruction Set for the Empirical Test revealed a money supply deficit equivalent to GDP [-(B+C)] caused by subtraction. It was further noted that this represented a correction of money supply and not an increase in money supply. Therefore, this enables a correction equivalent in domestic currency value to GDP at constant price.
This means that the empirical test shows that the Split Velocity system is able to support, hold or maintain the Zambian exchange rate, for example US$1 to K5 or US$1 to K1 by the equivalent of GDP per annum or US$25.8 billion in 2018. In essence SV-Tech allows a domestic currency to behave like and gain many of the attributes of a hard currency, a system that has never been possible prior to SV-Tech or achieved before in central banking history. In fact, even in terms of the scalar increase of money supply, an IMF reserve currency cannot be used to increase money supply in this way at constant price (without inflation). Furthermore, the supply of gold cannot be increased on a scalar level, at constant price (because the price of gold would fall as a result of over supply). In this regard a Split Velocity system outperforms both gold and hard currency, a feat currently regarded as impossible or improbable. Consequently, where credibility and currency stability are concerned it even outperforms the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) reserve currency system presently in use by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is much weaker than a Split Velocity system.
SV-Tech is at the very cutting edge of the Fintech space. The SDR system was introduced in 1969, a period when emoney, internet banking, debit and credit cards, cryptocurrencies and tech based financial innovations did not exist, therefore it should come as no surprise that innovations in the Fintech space will inevitably evolve that can achieve the same objectives as the SDR and that encourage a more inclusive approach to how currencies are managed and appraised. At the technical level, the fact that it can be demonstrated that where price stability, economic strength and reliability are concerned, a currency managed using a Split Velocity model outperforms a currency in the SDR system should be good news in that it complies with the merits for which the SDR system was created and exists in the first place. This development will allow for less discrimination when it comes to how domestic currencies are viewed.
For any central bank in the world, to be able to back its domestic currency with the same strength as a Split Velocity system it would have to be able to purchase and hold gold per annum equivalent to its annual national GDP. (To add some perspective to this, not even the United States Federal Reserve Bank has the capacity to back the US dollar at this level, to do this, it would have to upgrade to a Split Velocity System).
This means that for the central bank to be able to back the Zambian kwacha and exchange rate with the same capacity as Split Velocity, it would have to purchase and hold US$25.8 billion worth of gold and maintain the equivalent in GDP in gold as a reserve. ZCCM-IH and mines in general in Zambia are unable to produce this much gold, and even if they could produce and supply it, government could simply not afford to buy it all.
In addition to this, depending on market conditions, the price of gold rises and falls forcing a central bank to ride unpredictable trends, whereas a Split Velocity system maintains price stability even while economic conditions rise and fall. A Split Velocity model, when used to manage a national economy, is not subject to economic indicators, rather, economic indicators are subservient to a Split Velocity model. For instance, it does not wait to see what economic growth will be experienced, it sets and guarantees the growth rate.
Frankly, when it comes to price and financial system stability, gold and other precious metals need Split Velocity to maintain and sustain their value by sustaining higher levels of economic growth and maintaining a stable national economy. When it comes to financial system stability, this is one condition in which innovation is the more advantageous option.
Its important to understand that natural resources and mineral wealth are not a panacea for economic growth and national prosperity, the thought and strategy must delve much deeper and move far beyond this obstacle by appreciating that any price stability or grandiose economic benefit that any precious mineral like gold or other natural resource could deliver for the country would have already been delivered by copper, by now. There is a need to push beyond these limitations with the understanding that some countries with no natural resources have industrialized and formulate a strategy that scrutinizes the operational structure of the systems in place by which development objectives are achieved.
To discover minerals such as gold and other precious minerals is always beneficial to a country and its people and should receive as much attention and support as possible. An innovation like split Velocity ensures that gains from discovering and exploiting mineral resources are protected by a stable financial system where the demand for mineral resources being supplied by mining companies is kept robust by healthy levels of guaranteed annual growth. We live in a technical age in which innovations like SV-Tech represent safe hands when it comes to the direction to take towards creating a better life and a better world for the youth, without leaving anyone behind.
Mining and precious minerals are cardinal to development, have their uses and should be invested in, nevertheless, for a central bank, anywhere in the world, purchasing gold as a way of trying to maintain financial system stability, is in no uncertain terms, simply no comparison whatsoever to deploying a Split Velocity system.
The raw power, dynamic capacity for growth and agility of finance in a Split Velocity system means that any country managed on this system can enjoy the benefits of a domestic currency that performs at the same level of stability and reliability as that of a hard currency backed by a fully industrialized economy and with less of the kind of volatility seen in the currencies of developing economies.
The mechanisms it innovates to be able to do this are fairly easy to demonstrate.
When reference is made to a need to advance the knowledge paradigm in economics, finance, accounting and business it should be emphasized that retraining is required to understand the counter-intuitive processes of a Split Velocity system. For instance, if a student graduated today they would still be trained to believe the CFI is efficient and lossless. However, the empirical test for Split Velocity clearly shows that the CFI is dysfunctional and inefficient in a manner anyone, even laypersons, can see and understand, and it is creating monetary and fiscal instability, makes global poverty inherently unmanageable as well as costing governments billions of dollars.
Similarly, the generic tutelage in finance is that an increase in money supply will cause inflation, or the over supply of any product such as gold will cause a drop in price. If a student graduated from university today this is what they would believe. However, we can provide an empirical test to teach and demonstrate, even to laypersons, that a Split Velocity model allows increases in money supply to take place at constant price. Instead of inflation the economy experiences the inverse, that is, economic growth. No currency in the world today, not even that of industrialized nations or even a precious metal can maintain price stability in this way. This is very important for developing countries because it means in a Split Velocity system the domestic currency can technically perform more efficiently than any present day reserve currency belonging to an industrialized nation.
These are just the facts. Developing countries should not believe they are trapped by poverty and circumstance. Prosperity belongs to all nations and all people, not just a select few. The knowledge paradigm is key.
Most importantly, by acting diligently and expediently, this means that it is possible today to guarantee the youth a future without uncertainty, with opportunity and economic independence, not as a lofty or empty promise, but with a working strategy that will deliver within this generation.
Split-Velocity Solutions, Outreach 1st February 2019
To begin with anyone familiar with central banking history will know that there was a time that central banks kept gold in their vaults to back the value of currency in circulation. However, the gold standard was inevitably discarded for the simple fact that the value of gold may itself fluctuate over time, furthermore a system like this restricts a central bank’s capacity to issue new notes and coins to the availability of gold and can be quite costly to manage especially when a government needs to apply monetary policy to manage growth in an economy.
The gold standard was abandoned for good reason. Instead of measuring the value of a local currency against gold, central banks today instead monitor natural fluctuations in economic growth and increase or reduce money supply. This controls inflation levels and maintains the stability of a local currency. But as can be observed in Zambia where in the past few years the value of the Kwacha has fallen from US$1 – ZMK8 to US$1-ZMK12. This system is not perfect. In fact, it doesn’t really work, simply due to the fact that the Zambian Kwacha, in this system, is indexed against the natural propensity for the economy to grow over a period of time. Consequently, any shocks to the economy, such as drought, electricity deficits, a drop in copper prices, fall in forex reserves will hammer the value of the Kwacha and BOZ will be forced to ride these trends. It will only be able to mitigate against them using monetary policy, which is why the Kwacha must inevitably lose value as a buffer against declining economic performance. Put simply this places BOZ at the mercy of trends in the economy since the value of the Kwacha in the current system is indexed against economic performance, in the same way that a fall in the international gold price would affect local currency were it on the gold standard. Furthermore, increases in money supply using monetary policy must be supported by economic growth. In other words before BOZ can increase money supply it must first observe an increase in productivity or output in the economy.
Why Split Velocity technology is more valuable than the Gold Standard and more efficient than conventional Monetary Policy
The Gold Standard limits the capacity to back a national currency to the volume of gold held in the vaults of a reserve bank, the price of gold and other economic factors. Monetary policy limits a government’s capacity to back its national currency to the economic performance which can be quite poor when growth in GDP is minimal as is common in today’s economies. A Split-Velocity model backs a government’s national currency with economic value equivalent to 100% of GDP. Neither the Gold Standard nor current Monetary Policy come anywhere near this kind of strength and stability. Consequently governments are better able to and have the resources at hand to withstand shocks to the economy and easily counter shocks that would push an economy into recession. Whether these shocks are caused by natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes or are technical such as shortages of electricity, unemployment and poverty that governments may have trouble resolving today a Split-Velocity model on the other hand will be able to thenceforth counter these kinds of economic shocks with relative ease giving central banks the tools they need to support government.
A Split-Velocity Model is the first system or technology that allows central banks to control economic outcomes. For instance, whereas the Gold Standard is limited by the value of gold and amounts of it held in reserve; and Monetary Policy is dictated to by natural trends in economic growth over time, a Split Velocity model is not as weak or redundant as any of these approaches. It does not wait for a “price level” to be set by economic trends such as a natural growth of 3% experienced by the economy in one year. A Split Velocity model can allow a central bank to stimulate growth at constant price anywhere between 0 to 100% of GDP in one year. In other words, the central bank does not wait to see how the economy will perform, it now dictates how fast it wants that economy to grow over a given time frame.
This is unique in that no other technology/system offers central banks this kind of power over an economy. Mediocre natural growth rates such as 3% or 6% are now thrown out the window as the central bank can now harness as much as 100% of an economy’s capacity to grow over time [due to ending inefficiencies causing losses as a result of subtraction or implosion in the circular flow of income]. Since the central bank now controls the growth rate, it is no longer at the mercy of economic indicators, it now dictates them and can raise or slow down economic growth at will. Consequently, it now has near perfect control of the value of the national currency. For the Bank of Zambia, this means that the Zambian government, for the first time in Zambia’s history, would have at its disposal enough financial resources to end poverty in Zambia in just a few years. This is why we have made a submission to the Bank of Zambia for the introduction of a Split-Velocity system in Zambia.
This makes a Split Velocity Model more valuable than a Gold Standard when it comes to managing a national economy. It also means a Split Velocity Model or system is far more powerful, efficient, effective and advanced than any aspect of Monetary Policy currently being used by the Bank of Zambia [or any central bank in the world today for that matter] to manage a national economy.
Split Velocity Solutions Ltd 